no its just if 1 was a prime number then every other number would be a composite and prime which would defeat the purpose of calling it a prime list.
a prime is suppose to be unique in factorization 1*n...and even though 1 fits the purpose it would destroy the thought and terminology ...but yes you can think of 1 as being prime...its the fundamental number.

That 1 is not prime is purely a convention, and a modern one at that. it makes more sense for it not to be a prime. it isn't a composite either, it is a unit.

this kind of question, to my mind, fits in with the ones i get asked a lot like: but why do groups satisfy those 4 axioms. it's almost as if people believe that the axioms we choose are somehow god given, carved in some stone and we must make sense of these mysterious rules that came from nowhere when in fact they are man made.

this kind of question, to my mind, fits in with the ones i get asked a lot like: but why do groups satisfy those 4 axioms. it's almost as if people believe that the axioms we choose are somehow god given, carved in some stone and we must make sense of these mysterious rules that came from nowhere when in fact they are man made.

i dont see any problem with god given axioms espcecially when "god" itself is man made definition.

some axioms are more believable than others (see the axiom of choice for instance for one that isn't) but there no absolute truths. we study, say, groups, not becuase someone one day from absolutely nowehre said ooh, these four axioms i wonder... but because the study of certain objects over time were unified as it was observed that they had common properties.

no its just if 1 was a prime number then every other number would be a composite and prime which would defeat the purpose of calling it a prime list.

This isn't true. Remove the "p>1" clause from the definition in AKG's post and the only change is 1 is now considered a prime (assuming you aren't going to quibble over the "1 and p itself" bit). It has no effect on any other number being prime or not.

It's just a convention that we use this definition. It has no effect on the mathematics behind any theorems, only in how we state them i.e. the fundamental theorem of arithmetic would not suddenly be wrong just irritating to state. It's turned out to be convenient to seperate primes from the units, so we build the definitions to take this into account.

arildo: because the characteristic that makes primes interesting is the fact that they are only devisable by themself and 1. The number 1 serves this condition so I see no need to exclude 1 from the definition of primes. In fact, one might get off on a bad start if one were to exclude 1 and graph primes, in order to find connections between primes and other number series.

arildo: because the characteristic that makes primes interesting is the fact that they are only devisable by themself and 1. The number 1 serves this condition so I see no need to exclude 1 from the definition of primes. In fact, one might get off on a bad start if one were to exclude 1 and graph primes, in order to find connections between primes and other number series.

that isn't the proper definition of prime, it is your vwersin of the definition. and in any case it is better stated as "has exactrly two positive factors" since this precludes 1 (and even characterizes primes in the integers as well as the naturals).

that isn't the proper definition of prime, it is your vwersin of the definition. and in any case it is better stated as "has exactrly two positive factors" since this precludes 1 (and even characterizes primes in the integers as well as the naturals).